This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Clinton in talks about possible move to World Bank

She has said publicly she did not plan to stay on at the State Department for more than four years. Associates say Clinton has expressed interest in having the World Bank job should the bank's current president, Robert Zoellick, leave at the end of his term, in the middle of 2012.
"Hillary Clinton wants the job," said one source who knows the secretary well.
A second source also said Clinton wants the position.

Is this really a position where you want a life-long politician in charge, especially in times like these?

Re: Clinton in talks about possible move to World Bank

Is this really a position where you want a life-long politician in charge, especially in times like these?

Historically, a bit more than half of World Bank presidents have been politicians. The others are corporate executive or bankers. Why does this even matter, what difference does it make?

Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.

Re: Clinton in talks about possible move to World Bank

Originally Posted by AdamT

I would say no, though Clinton would certainly be a better president than Paul Wolfowitz!

Well naturally, since he's the Prince of Neoconservatiism. You're so predictable.

"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
"Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Re: Clinton in talks about possible move to World Bank

Originally Posted by iliveonramen

Why exactly isn't Hillary a good canidate?

I know, qualifications don't matter, only that she's a woman and a liberal.

"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
"Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

Re: Clinton in talks about possible move to World Bank

Originally Posted by American

I know, qualifications don't matter, only that she's a woman and a liberal.

Why ISN'T she qualified? Care to answer the question instead of building straw men?

Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.